Ubuntu 15.10: KVM vs. Xen vs. VirtualBox Virtualization Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ArchLinux
    replied
    Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post
    Ha, laughable. See you in court VMware as that EULA clause doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
    I wanted to know: http://law.stackexchange.com/questio...actually-valid

    Leave a comment:


  • zboson
    replied
    According to the VirtualBox manual it says

    "You should not, however, configure virtual machines to use more CPU cores than you have available physically (real cores, no hyperthreads)".

    In your tests you wrote

    "all 20 CPU threads (ten core CPU + HT) were made available to the virtual machine under test."

    Maybe setting the number of cores in VirtualBox to the number of hyper-threads is having an adverse effect on VirtualBox?

    Leave a comment:


  • SystemCrasher
    replied
    Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
    well you got two things right there. Hyper-V and Windows both suck on server platforms. I havent tried out Linux on Hyper-V lately but i did hear about microsoft was contributing code to linux kernel for better supporting GNU/linux on hyper-v/azure.
    I had chance to deal with hyper-v and I can admit no other VM software killed me so many VMs like hyper-v did. MS support was not able to resolve issue, wasting ~1.5 years or so for nothing. Azure is also fancy thing, worth of its own epic tales .

    But yeah, they have contributed code for hyper-v drivers. Yes, sometimes hell can freeze over and Microsoft can commit to Linux, on GPL terms. And while they only did it after GPL violation pressure and only because it makes their hyper-v more competitive, its still some very unusual and unexpected show, almost like seeing alive dinosaur on the street.

    Leave a comment:


  • sarfarazahmad
    replied
    Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
    Whatever, but I do not come to phoronix to read microsoft marketing bullshit. Since it does not runs on Linux (or at least something *nix-like) and proprietary/vendor locked, it would be better to be benchmarked somewhere else I guess. After all, it runs on windows only. And windows as server is a nightmare.

    well you got two things right there. Hyper-V and Windows both suck on server platforms. I havent tried out Linux on Hyper-V lately but i did hear about microsoft was contributing code to linux kernel for better supporting GNU/linux on hyper-v/azure.

    Leave a comment:


  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by zyrx View Post
    ... An additional interesting metric as far as Xen is concerned would be to include numbers for a fully virtualized guest as well as its PV counterpart.
    I would add the "PVH" mode to this list (if available in Ubuntu).

    Leave a comment:


  • SystemCrasher
    replied
    Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Post
    well if esxi is here then shouldn't hyper-V be tested too.
    Whatever, but I do not come to phoronix to read microsoft marketing bullshit. Since it does not runs on Linux (or at least something *nix-like) and proprietary/vendor locked, it would be better to be benchmarked somewhere else I guess. After all, it runs on windows only. And windows as server is a nightmare.

    Leave a comment:


  • sarfarazahmad
    replied
    well if esxi is here then shouldn't hyper-V be tested too. on a personal experience note, I am witnessing organisations moving away from Hyper-V. KVM clubbed with easy provisioning and configuration mgmt with tools like Foreman are the real cost-saving deals. Yay ! for linux adoption

    Leave a comment:


  • budric
    replied
    Originally posted by reCAPTCHA View Post

    Much more interesting IMO is VMware vSphere Hypervisor, which is free for unlimited number of CPU up to 32 GB of RAM per CPU, though I am not sure about the benchmarking issue. IIRC they don't allow result publishing, so no point than in running it except for personal use...
    Another thing is, this is totally different beast compared to Workstation. No graphical interface, and to manage it, one needs Windows vSphere Client application.
    Publish the results under hypervisor: arevmway esxiway

    Leave a comment:


  • reCAPTCHA
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    I don't have a VMware Workstation license, which is why it wasn't tested.
    Much more interesting IMO is VMware vSphere Hypervisor, which is free for unlimited number of CPU up to 32 GB of RAM per CPU, though I am not sure about the benchmarking issue. IIRC they don't allow result publishing, so no point than in running it except for personal use...
    Another thing is, this is totally different beast compared to Workstation. No graphical interface, and to manage it, one needs Windows vSphere Client application.
    Last edited by reCAPTCHA; 23 October 2015, 04:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zyrx
    replied
    Originally posted by darrent View Post
    Michael
    What I would find more useful is how well each of the VM platforms "scales out" as more VM's are added - as that is more like how I'm using the virtualisation platforms.

    e.g. what is the "average performance" of 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, up to ...{N)x VM's ( e.g. a 4GB RAM, dual CPU VM, sharing and contending for access to the host resources).
    This. I'm currently running a Xen host and chose the Xen route over KVM as all the anecdotal reports I could find at the time (several years ago) suggested that Xen scaled better. I'd be interested in knowing if this is still the case or if KVM has made some strides here that would make it worth re-investigating. An additional interesting metric as far as Xen is concerned would be to include numbers for a fully virtualized guest as well as its PV counterpart.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X